Extra Megapixels Useless?

[imagemaker46]

Geez, I don't know, I've seen some of my 4mp images cover the full side of a truck and look pretty good. I've seen 100asa prints look like ****, and I've seen 1600asa prints look great, starts with with a great image, correct exposure, you know the things that come with understandng how to shoot well, and not just talk.

I won't get into a bigger is better chat, I know the difference, I understand the difference. All I know is that I have produced wall size images from a 1D years ago that looked great.

I agree if your into prints for advertising on the side of trucks mp isnt that big of deal. Super high mp only really helps if u crop heavily or print to a very high resolution, like for large gallery prints.

I agree, and if you're having to crop too much, you're shooting too loose in the first place. I do alot of newspaper, magazine work, and having a 20mp file is pointless for these applications.

 

[Garbz]

Oh boy! The old "megapixels don't matter" line. I suppose if you don't mind printing everything at 4x6 that would be true.

There's a practical limit to your quote. Megapixels do matter. If your camera is 5 years old. These days megapixels DON'T matter. My cell phone has a 8mpxl camera. My point and shoot has a 10, the new one 12, the point of this thread is that cropped sensors are 16.

Petty much every camera (in the point and shoot market, phone market, and select midrange DSLRs) you buy these days have optics that are unable to resolve the full resolution of their sensors. So the number really doesn't matter.

 

[unpopular]

^^ I am just not sure I really believe this. Real-world tests indicate otherwise. Time after time people say this, but don't take into account the fact that your camera's pixels aren't what you think they are - and I really don't know how much an effect this would have.

While the individual light sensing unit of your camera might be too small to resolve a given lens, there are four light sensing components per image pixel. Because these components occupy unique space over two dimensions, they can be thought of as one larger, average pixel. So a 24mp camera is not really 24mp at all, but rather 12mp.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Geez, I don't know, I've seen some of my 4mp images cover the full side of a truck and look pretty good. I've seen 100asa prints look like ****, and I've seen 1600asa prints look great, starts with with a great image, correct exposure, you know the things that come with understandng how to shoot well, and not just talk.

I won't get into a bigger is better chat, I know the difference, I understand the difference. All I know is that I have produced wall size images from a 1D years ago that looked great.

I agree if your into prints for advertising on the side of trucks mp isnt that big of deal. Super high mp only really helps if u crop heavily or print to a very high resolution, like for large gallery prints.

There is NO difference. If you plan to crop, you could always upsize using Perfect Resize to get 1000% size without quality loss. If you want more natural results, a bicubic resizing will look exactly like what a higher MP will produce.

 

[imagemaker46]

Discussions like these always make me nostalgic for the simple days of film.

 

[rgregory1965]

So I could have saved a few hundred by gettin a D90 istead of my D7000......nice to know now.....lol

 

[EchoingWhisper]

So I could have saved a few hundred by gettin a D90 istead of my D7000......nice to know now.....lol

Not really. Both camera might not have big differences in REAL resolution, but D7000 is definitely better in noise performance, dynamic range, tonal range and color sensitivity.

 

[unpopular]

There is NO difference. If you plan to crop, you could always upsize using Perfect Resize to get 1000% size without quality loss. If you want more natural results, a bicubic resizing will look exactly like what a higher MP will produce.

Apparently this is not an evidence based discussion.

 

[Crollo]

If you plan to crop, you could always upsize using Perfect Resize to get 1000% size without quality loss.

Uh, no...

 

[EchoingWhisper]

There is NO difference. If you plan to crop, you could always upsize using Perfect Resize to get 1000% size without quality loss. If you want more natural results, a bicubic resizing will look exactly like what a higher MP will produce.

Apparently this is not an evidence based discussion.

Common sense will tell you that when the sensor's resolution is higher than the lenses resolution, more MP will look like bicubic upsizing. Just my common sense. I might be wrong.

 

[unpopular]

Take a look at my posts in this thread, and let me know what you think. What you say does make sense, but only if it were the case. And it may be. But I think I have reasons to think it isn't, and that digital cameras actually have much lower functional resolution than they claim.

---

As far as the 1000x statement, I know you were a bit excited on the topic and prob exaggerated, but at this amount you'll start seeing pixelation, and not organic, smooth transitions like you would with low optical resolution. Even at 4x you'll start seeing the image's finer details break down into blurry squares. If you try to sharpen this artifact, you'll only emphasize it, whereas with optical blur if you try to sharpen you have some opportunity to recover the visibility of detail.

I don't think of this as an argument in favor of large pixel count, but interpolation is always destructive - even if the detail which a larger pixel count returns has more to do with the lens than the scene - it is detail nonetheless, if even only to be used in USM.

Remember, the real world isn't composed of boxes.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

...you could always upsize using Perfect Resize to get 1000% size without quality loss.

I have never used this software but I seriously doubt your claim. One cannot create what isn't there in the first place.

I used to install home theaters on the side for a while because I love movies. In the process, I installed upconverting DVD players. Not because they were incredible, they were not. But they did improve the image to some degree and for anyone with a fairly large collection of regular DVDs they were well worth it. I have one of those players myself

However they did not and still do not achieve the quality of Blue Ray. Therefore I doubt your claim of 1000% size increase with no loss of quality. And the problem is the same, inventing pixels that are just not there. It may become possible some day but I don't see it today.

The idea of making a print large enough for a billboard or the side of a truck from a 10mp photo is neither here nor there. Those are not meant to be seen up close, they are seen from a distance and, most often, while moving at a fairly high speed. So the quality requirements are not the same as for a print shown in a gallery or, as with most of the very large photos that exist today, meant to be studied in details, in little chunk. And those are achieved by stitching together hundreds of shots. Not by using some sort of "upconverting" software.

As far as the OPs question is concerned, none of it matters much. The camera brands are playing to the bragging rights of the buyers, most of whom understand very little besides big numbers.

 

[unpopular]

I have never used this software but I seriously doubt your claim. One cannot create what isn't there in the first place.

I used to install home theaters on the side for a while because I love movies. In the process, I installed upconverting DVD players. Not because they were incredible, they were not. But they did improve the image to some degree and for anyone with a fairly large collection of regular DVDs they were well worth it. I have one of those players myself

However they did not and still do not achieve the quality of Blue Ray. Therefore I doubt your claim of 1000% size increase with no loss of quality. And the problem is the same, inventing pixels that are just not there. It may become possible some day but I don't see it today.

The idea of making a print large enough for a billboard or the side of a truck from a 10mp photo is neither here nor there. Those are not meant to be seen up close, they are seen from a distance and, most often, while moving at a fairly high speed. So the quality requirements are not the same as for a print shown in a gallery or, as with most of the very large photos that exist today, meant to be studied in details, in little chunk. And those are achieved by stitching together hundreds of shots. Not by using some sort of "upconverting" software.

As far as the OPs question is concerned, none of it matters much. The camera brands are playing to the bragging rights of the buyers, most of whom understand very little besides big numbers.

The point he was making is that it wasn't there in the first place. The last statement is kind of like saying that because owning a Leica earns your bragging rights, Leica is just as good as a P&S. Simply because camera manufactures are appealing to photographer's egos does not mean that there is no benefit to larger pixel counts.

 

[imagemaker46]

I won't dispute that larger files allow more cropping, and you'll end up with a cleaner image when printed as fine art. For my application having huge files slows everything down, and doing stuff for the wire services, the huge files just aren't necessary. Doing advertising/studio work I can understand the need for larger raw files.

What I believe is that the camera companies are simply using the "bigger is better" mentality, in order to lure potential buyers into thinking that is what is required to be a photographer, and people believe it. That's business. I can't dispute all the facts that have been displayed on this thread, because honestly I just don't understand it all, and don't feel I need to know it to be a good shooter. I like to leave the technical information to those that appreciate it, understand it and enjoy that side of photography.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I can't dispute all the facts that have been displayed on this thread, because honestly I just don't understand it all, and don't feel I need to know it to be a good shooter. I like to leave the technical information to those that appreciate it, understand it and enjoy that side of photography.

I agree. I'm not technically minded either but I have enough experience to trust my eyes as far as the results are concerned. Most of the technical stuff I get comes from spending time here and with more technically-minded photogs.

The last statement is kind of like saying that because owning a Leica earns your bragging rights, Leica is just as good as a P&S. Simply because camera manufactures are appealing to photographer's egos does not mean that there is no benefit to larger pixel counts.

I hope you meant this the other way around, ie a P&S being just as good as a Leica. Because if a Leica is just as good as P&S we have a problem

And that is exactly what I meant. But you have to keep in mind that I'm talking about sales in general. Not sales to the Pro or advanced amateur markets which are in reality very small. The market that keeps the camera brands going is the amateur one, you know, the snapshot people. And in the hands of people who are not really interested in learning the art, people who just want memories, a P&S is just as good. Actually, because there is so much less to learn about them, a P&S may very well get them better shots on a regular basis.

For a lot of people, big names and large mp counts are nothing more than d•ck extenders. Before I got back into photo I carried a small Nikon P&S which was just great for my family album photos. Back in the days of film I carried an Olympus XA on vacations. Nothing more than a P&S but, man, it was the Rolls Royce of film P&Ss and I still own 2 of them.

So, NO, I don't have a problem with P&S cameras. I don't have a problem with chest thumpers either. In photography they allow the camera companies to make enough money to keep on doing research to come up with new, better stuff which will eventually be useful to the pros and advanced amateurs